IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard

Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org> Thu, 23 February 2017 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <phessler@theapt.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B8201297CA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 05:52:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.415
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.415 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FAKE_REPLY_C=1.486, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7dSYA_VAYTpB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 05:52:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gir.theapt.org (gir.theapt.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f0b:8b2::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5897F1297EE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 05:52:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gir.theapt.org (unknown [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/0 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: phessler) by gir.theapt.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 011A878984 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:52:21 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:52:20 +0100
From: Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt> (IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture) to Internet Standard
Message-ID: <20170223135220.GJ5069@gir.theapt.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/lt10FR_k17zrm8PPI08XxRRzc04>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:52:24 -0000

----- Forwarded message from Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org> -----

Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:40:26 +0100
From: Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Objection to draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07.txt
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>

Restricting all subnets to The One True Size(tm) of /64 is utterly
ridiculous.  Sure, that may be an artificial limitation of SLAAC and
various other technologies, but *those* can have limitations.

Limiting it inside the entire specification is even stupider of an idea
than still supporting Classful networks.

As an implementation, OpenBSD will never add such a crazy thing.  And
you know that many other implementations won't do so either.

I strongly oppose this draft.

-- 
Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email